A recent phylogenetic analysis of selected groups of cyclostome braconid wasps by Whitfield (1992) was used to investigate the evolution of biological characters associated with the transition from ecto- to endoparasitism. Incorrect methodology in character polarization and incorrect scoring of characters, and a failure to include other available data are shown by reanalysis of a corrected data matrix to compromise Whitfield's conclusion that endoparasitism evolved twice in his selected set of taxa. Greater rigor and the use of additional informative characters are advocated to obtain more robust phylogeny upon which conclusions regarding biological evolution can be more reliably based.